NationStates

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Elected monarchies are a thing you know. Generally they are indirectly elected though.

Elected monarchies are an insult to both democracy and monarchy!

But seriously, they exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

One could argue the offer benefits of both, and at least keep really shitty children off the throne.

Sanctissima wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:British imperialism departed North America last century. Unless you want to get rid of all signs Britain was ever in North America, which would require the depopulation of virtually the entire continent.

And the Commonwealth is bad because, obviously, it's an evil plot to maintain British global hegemony and not at all a harmless cultural association promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law in a not-entirely-successful way. Lyndon LaRouche was right all along.

-sigh-

Yes, by all means, jump to the absurd.

The Commonwealth is a joke. Every member-State (aside from the UK) pays into it, and for what? So that Britain can grace us with its presence? Honestly, fuck that. The UK should be paying us just for sticking around in this useless organization, not the other way around. We shouldn't be expected to throw lavish receptions and pay for the Queen's expenses every time she feels like taking a trip to the colonies. She has more than enough money to pay for herself.

The only reason the Commonwealth exists is the same reason why the Francophonie or any other culture-based intergovernmental European organization exists. It's because the mother countries can't seem to accept that their empires are dead, and they're desperate to preserve what little illusion of nostalgic imperialism remains. I'm tired of seeing my own country waste millions per year on keeping a vegetative corpse of an empire on life support.

What do you mean, the UK doesn't pay into it? We pay as much as any other Commonwealth member.

Polls carried out by the Royal Commonwealth Society show that support for the Commonwealth is highest in developing countries such as the African members, and lowest in Great Britain itself, so it's hardly the UK that "can't seem to accept that [its] empire [is] dead." And I want to know who you think pays for President Obama's trips to foreign countries. You don't think your country, wherever it may be, pays for state visits by other heads of state? If you live in a commonwealth realm you have even less reason to complain, because the Queen is your head of state- and yet you only pay for her when she is in your country and/or performing duties on behalf of your country. The rest of the time, the Queen's expenses are paid solely by the UK Government, so you get your head of state practically for free.

Basically, you don't know what the Commonwealth is, why it exists or how it works, yet here you are bitching about it because "oh noes muh colonial legacy!!!11." Have fun with all that bitterness, you're the only one that it's hurting.

Novus America wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Elected monarchies are an insult to both democracy and monarchy!

But seriously, they exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

One could argue the offer benefits of both, and at least keep really shitty children off the throne.

Perhaps they do have some use, I just don't want it to turn into some X factor style popularity contest between a load of mediocrity. Just look at the EU referendum, there is still an absolute lack of truth behind either campaign.

Novus America wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Elected monarchies are an insult to both democracy and monarchy!

But seriously, they exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

One could argue the offer benefits of both, and at least keep really shitty children off the throne.

You mean there are examples aside from Vatican City?

The Romulan Republic wrote:Hereditary monarchy is inherently wrong as it places some people above others on the basis of birth/blood.

Yeah, let's just give some complete stranger power over everyone based on their looks and their ability to come up with a catchy slogan and have his cronies work with special interests to get him there.

Oh sure.
While were talking about evolutionary regressions, lets just dissolve DC and reduce the states to psuedo tribal fuedal baronies that squabble amongst themselves until Persia comes calling. Then we will appoint a great Alexander as a high king to lead our armies to victory.

-Mr Money- wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Hereditary monarchy is inherently wrong as it places some people above others on the basis of birth/blood.

Yeah, let's just give some complete stranger power over everyone based on their looks and their ability to come up with a catchy slogan and have his cronies work with special interests to get him there.

You sir, are good.

Putin for the US President 2016

Arioslavia wrote:Putin for the US President 2016

Loves Putin and Russia. Opposes Christian Conservatism... Yeah cause that makes sense.

Novus America wrote:

Arioslavia wrote:Putin for the US President 2016

Loves Putin and Russia. Opposes Christian Conservatism... Yeah cause that makes sense.

Yes, I like Russia, their conservatism and Orthodox revival is much more apparent than the West thinks.

Arioslavia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Loves Putin and Russia. Opposes Christian Conservatism... Yeah cause that makes sense.

Yes, I like Russia, their conservatism and Orthodox revival is much more apparent than the West thinks.

So you like Russian Christian conservatism? They are more clerical and conservative than the west. And also not communist not socialist at all.

Naaah, make America Inca again.

Novus America wrote:

Arioslavia wrote:Yes, I like Russia, their conservatism and Orthodox revival is much more apparent than the West thinks.

So you like Russian Christian conservatism? They are more clerical and conservative than the west. And also not communist not socialist at all.

I don't like the Russian Christian conservatism but I still like Russia. You say it's more clerical - it seems to be so for Western observers, but in fact it isn't. I know some Russians, they say that now there's a revival of Orthodox religiousness, but it's rather symbolic and not very deep.

Arioslavia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
So you like Russian Christian conservatism? They are more clerical and conservative than the west. And also not communist not socialist at all.

I don't like the Russian Christian conservatism but I still like Russia. You say it's more clerical - it seems to be so for Western observers, but in fact it isn't. I know some Russians, they say that now there's a revival of Orthodox religiousness, but it's rather symbolic and not very deep.

Most relgion everywhere is not deep. That is not unique.

Novus America wrote:

Arioslavia wrote:I don't like the Russian Christian conservatism but I still like Russia. You say it's more clerical - it seems to be so for Western observers, but in fact it isn't. I know some Russians, they say that now there's a revival of Orthodox religiousness, but it's rather symbolic and not very deep.

Most relgion everywhere is not deep. That is not unique.

That's true. How is it in the US? Here in Europe we imagine Americans as deeply religious.

Arioslavia wrote:That's true. How is it in the US? Here in Europe we imagine Americans as deeply religious.

Most Americans are not. There's a small (but reliably voting) evangelical minority, but most Americans are cafeteria Christians who have a vague belief in Christianity but not a lot of interest in it.

Liriena wrote:Naaah, make America Inca again.

Time to learn the Inca language (Quechua) - Fast forward to 2:19 which is where the learning really starts - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYSRzIMSTxY -

Engleberg wrote:

-Mr Money- wrote:
Yeah, let's just give some complete stranger power over everyone based on their looks and their ability to come up with a catchy slogan and have his cronies work with special interests to get him there.

You sir, are good.

Thank you

oh my god

please stop

Legatia wrote:oh my god

please stop

You're going to have to be specific, friend.

-Mr Money- wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Hereditary monarchy is inherently wrong as it places some people above others on the basis of birth/blood.

Yeah, let's just give some complete stranger power over everyone based on their looks and their ability to come up with a catchy slogan and have his cronies work with special interests to get him there.

Yeah, let's just give some royal piece of shit ceremonial power over everyone else based on the family and socioeconomic status he was born to.

You got it backwards, under Article 4, Section 3 the constitute parts of the United Kingdom can apply for statehood and once granted statehood under Article 6 propose Amendments to said Constitution.

Who wouldn't want to join the "more perfect Union"?

ANARCO-CAPITALISM! PRIVATIZE THE ATMOSPHERE!

So you mean we should rejoin a kingdom that we forcibly broke away from and then fought a total of two wars against them to maintain a Republican form of government because we don't have very good Presidential choices? please, if any former colony should join you over shitty leadership you should focus of recolonizing Africa.

-Mr Money- wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Hereditary monarchy is inherently wrong as it places some people above others on the basis of birth/blood.

Yeah, let's just give some complete stranger power over everyone based on their looks and their ability to come up with a catchy slogan and have his cronies work with special interests to get him there.

If a poor leader is elected into power, it is the fault of the populous. If a poor leader inherits the power, it is the fault of the government system. Furthermore, poor leaders can be elected out of office in the next election while a nation is stuck with a poor monarch. When it comes to representing the people of a nation (the purpose of government), rule by popular vote will always be better than rule by whoever happens to be born into it.